On 30 Nov 2009 12:06:56 -0800, [email protected] (Veilleux, Jon L) wrote:
>Well I have to pipe up and respond to this remark. There are a TON of COBOL >programs here that have been running for years and years with no problems >and reasonable performance. Once they get replaced by JAVA, etc, they abend >constantly and perform horribly. I have yet to see 'good' JAVA code. >If COBOL was still taught in the Colleges, then you would see the function >libraries being built by the same folks who are now building the JAVA,etc, >functions (with better performance...my $.02). People don't need college to learn Java. Java's available for free, it handles the kind of applications an amateur knows & likes to play with, and it is easy to find help on the Web. CoBOL is designed to handle business needs. Hobbyists not only don't have those needs on their PCs, they don't really understand them. I have seen posts on both sides of this thread saying that they haven't seen any "good code" on the other side. I suspect that these are based upon incompatible definitions of "good code". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
